Delhi

East Delhi

CC/394/2015

QUALITY HOME - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESDSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC NO.394/15

 

M/S QUALITY HOME APPLIANCES

47, RAJASTHANI UNDYG NAGAR,

DELHI-110033

 

                                                                                               Complainant

                                                      Vs

 

 

1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.

 ORIENTAL HOUSE

 A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROA

 NEW DELHI-110002

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER

 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.

 A-1/3, ANUPAM BHAWAN, AZADPUR DELHI

 

    

                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-05.06.2015

DATE OF ORDER        -10.02.2016

 

O R D E R

 

SH.N.A ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

The Complainant took a standard fire and special perils floater policy and wrote a letter to the Respondent on 15/02/2013 for getting six godowns insured for Rs.4 crores covering the risk of fire, earthquake, burglary and enclosed the cheque of Rs.53,048/-. The office clerk of the Complainant without verifying the correct address of the godowns attached the list of godowns on plain papers in hurry. On 17/02/2013, Complainant submitted the proposal form along with the list of godowns with correct address with the Respondent No.2. The Respondent issued policy No. 272601/11/2013/198 effective from 18/02/2013 to 17/02/2014. On 25/07/2013 at around 6.45 pm fire occurred at godown situated at Chandigarh Ambala Road, near Swami Vivekanand School, Zirakpur, District-Mohali, Punjab, due to short circuit causing a loss of Rs.40 lakhs to the Complainant. On 26/07/2013, he lodged a claim of Rs.11,04,747/-. The surveyor was deputed, who submitted his preliminary loss report advising the Respondent to maintain the loss reserve of Rs.15, lakhs in the books of account. On 27/12/2013, he revised the loss of reserve to Rs.10, lakhs. On 20/03/2014, the Respondent informed the Complainant that the subject godown is not covered under the policy. The rent agreement & copy of the sales tax return etc were also submitted but his claim was repudiated on 16/10/2014. The Complainant wrote to the grievance sell of the Respondent but his claim was rejected. Through RTI on the interference of the appellate authority, the Respondent No.2 supplied the copy of the file. It was clear that the Complainant along with proposal form filed the list of the godown along with their address and the address of the subject godown is accordingly mentioned in the subject list. As such repudiation is illegal. The mistake was at the end of the Respondent. The Complainant prayed for payment of Rs.11,04,747/- with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and cost of litigation.

          Respondent in their reply have taken the plea that as per the policy the address given is Chedigah Anhola Road above MRF Tyre, Mohali Punjab, when the loss has occurred at Chandigarh Ambala Road near Swami Vivekanand School Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, the same was not insured. The policy was delivered to the Complainant but the Complainant never mentioned nor complained that the address of location is wrongly mentioned in the policy and he never ever applied for the correction. It is admitted in Para 23 that the Complainant has obtained the document through RTI. Rest all the allegations have been denied.

          Both the parties have filed their Affidavits.

          Heard and perused the records.

          From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that issuance policy is not in dispute, the only dispute is with regard to the fact that the godown at Chandigarh Ambala Road near Swami Vivekanand School Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, was covered by the policy or not. The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in the policy in question which is paper C-3 on record at serial No. 6 Chedigah Anhola Road above MRF Tyre Mohali Punjab, has been mentioned and the fire has occurred in some other godown at Chandigarh Ambala Road near Swami Vivekanand School Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab. Counsel for the Complainant argued that it is clear from the policy itself that at serial No.6 serious spelling mistake has been committed by the Respondent in issuing the policy in place of Chandigarh, Chedigah Anhola has been written when it should have been Chandigarh Ambala Road Mohali Punjab. This fact is not specifically denied in the written statement of the Respondent that paper No.14 was not submitted along with the proposal on 17/02/2013 and in the list of godown at serial No.6 Chandigarh Ambala Road near Swami Vivekanand School Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, was not mentioned. This fact has been admitted by the Respondent that the Complainant has taken the copy of all the documents under RTI regarding the policy in question. The Affidavit of Mr. Akhil Jain is very specific wherein they have stated that they have submitted these documents along with proposal form and these documents was received by them under the RTI from the Respondent. There is no denial on oath in the Affidavit of Sh. R.S. Kalra that this documents was not submitted along with the proposal form and it was not delivered to the Complainant under the RTI. In view of the specific allegation on oath and apparent spelling mistakes in the policy issued by the Respondent, it is clear that the Complainant submitted the list in which the godown in question was included. In these circumstances the stand taken by the Respondent that it was not covered by the policy in question cannot be accepted. The Complainant has filed along with the complaint the preliminary loss attached by the surveyor asking for keeping the loss reserved. There is no final report submitted on record by either of the parties regarding the actual loss sustained and assessed by the surveyor of the Respondent. In the absence of surveyor report, the amount as claimed under this petition cannot be ordered to be paid.

          We allow this complaint, we direct the Respondent to decide the claim of the Complainant after treating the godown in question as covered under the policy in question. The Respondent shall take into consideration the report of loss submitted by the surveyor and decide the claim within 30 days from the date of service of this order. We award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental pain, harassment and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Let copy of the order be served on both the parties as per rule.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                                                                                                     (N.A.ZAIDI)

         MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT